Pastor’s Speech Against Equal Rights (surprise ending)

[Stygian]

I was sent this earlier today. Regardless of how you feel about gay rights, it is a rather powerful message.

Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending

[Butterfly]

I was sent this earlier today. Regardless of how you feel about gay rights, it is a rather powerful message.

Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending

It is indeed a powerful message, especially where he says, "I hope you all will stand on the right side of history"
-

[Danieltwotwenty]

I was sent this earlier today. Regardless of how you feel about gay rights, it is a rather powerful message.

Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending

It is indeed a powerful message, especially where he says, "I hope you all will stand on the right side of history"
-

I stand with God, I care little for man's history and who is on which side.

Dan

[Stygian]

I can't help but agree ^

However, I've always felt that people have been arguing the wrong point. Why fight to 'legalize' it when the government should have no say whatsoever in such private contracts?

[Ivellious]

It's not that homosexual couples are arguing for more government control of marriages. It's simply a fact of life that the government provides a huge amount of financial, social, and legal benefits to couples who are married under their laws.

In today's world, there are two sides to marriage. There is the personal/spiritual/religious side, which many Christians feel is limited to one man and one woman. Many also disagree with that viewpoint, but as far as I'm concerned, everyone's personal views of marriage shouldn't be forced on anyone else. If you and your church believe that gays should not be allowed to marry each other under your faith, so be it, that is their right.

However, the second side of marriage is the legal side. The physical contract that the government regulates and distributes. This is where things get sketchy when you start saying that homosexual marriages should not be legal. The government does not (or at the very least should not) regulate religious beliefs. The legal benefits of marriage are wholly separate from the religious side of things. So when people start spouting off crap about their religion being violated when the government considers allowing gays to enter a legal marriage, that where I call BS, because you are saying that the government should only give proper marriage benefits to couples following a specific religious ideology, which as far as I'm concerned is creating a required religious belief for anyone who wants to get married.

In short, I don't think the government should enforce personal or religious relationships. But the gay marriage movement wants no such thing. No one is forcing a Catholic church to accept gay marriages under their religion. Rather, the anti-gay marriage movement is doing just the opposite; forcing everyone who is not against gay marriage to live by those specific religious beliefs.

[Danieltwotwenty]

It's not that homosexual couples are arguing for more government control of marriages. It's simply a fact of life that the government provides a huge amount of financial, social, and legal benefits to couples who are married under their laws.

I agree that they should have all the legal right as straight couples, change the law not the marriage act as this is not a theocracy.

So when people start spouting off crap about their religion being violated when the government considers allowing gays to enter a legal marriage, that where I call BS, because you are saying that the government should only give proper marriage benefits to couples following a specific religious ideology, which as far as I'm concerned is creating a required religious belief for anyone who wants to get married.

I believe they should have all the legal rights, just don't call it marriage, maybe call it something else, there is a danger once you start changing definitions, what do we allow next is the big question.

In short, I don't think the government should enforce personal or religious relationships. But the gay marriage movement wants no such thing. No one is forcing a Catholic church to accept gay marriages under their religion. Rather, the anti-gay marriage movement is doing just the opposite; forcing everyone who is not against gay marriage to live by those specific religious beliefs

It's only a matter of time before they force churches, they have already forced church run adoption agencies to adopt out to gay couples and when they refused they shut them down and the kids were left with no home. Call it something else, make a new act specific to gay couples and leave marriage alone, even our Prime Minister in Australia, Julia Gillard who is an atheist agrees that we should not change the definition of the marriage act and that we should instead include gay couples with the defacto act, which gives them all the same rights as married people. Julia Gillard is in a defacto relationship with her partner Tim Mathieson, she has stated that marriage is a religious institution and should remain so, and that two people who love each other have no need of marriage unless it is for religious reasons, I agree with her on this issue and respect her opinion.


Dan

[BryanH]

It's only a matter of time before they force churches, they have already forced church run adoption agencies to adopt out to gay couples and when they refused they shut them down and the kids were left with no home.

I guess that those people who closed their agencies because of gay people and left kids with no home were no TRUE ALTRUISTS like you Dan.

I think altruism is doing something while having the best interests of another peron in mind regardless of how that will effect you, good or bad.

P.S.: Dan please don't take this personally, but this is just a proof that people don't do good just out of altruism.

[Danieltwotwenty]

It's only a matter of time before they force churches, they have already forced church run adoption agencies to adopt out to gay couples and when they refused they shut them down and the kids were left with no home.

I guess that those people who closed their agencies because of gay people and left kids with no home were no TRUE ALTRUISTS like you Dan.

I think altruism is doing something while having the best interests of another peron in mind regardless of how that will effect you, good or bad.

P.S.: Dan please don't take this personally, but this is just a proof that people don't do good just out of altruism.

Did I say they closed their doors willfully, they were sued and forced to close.

If they were working in the best interests of the child then yes it was altruistic.

I really don't see how they were not being altruistic, it seems others were responsible for the closure of the agency, caring not for the childrens welfare but only caring for their own selfish desires.

Dan

[BryanH]

I really don't see how they were not being altruistic, it seems others were responsible for the closure of the agency.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. They were sued because they refused to accept gay couples to adopt children. So the fact that they had to close was because of their own refusal to work with gay couples.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I really don't see how they were not being altruistic, it seems others were responsible for the closure of the agency.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. They were sued because they refused to accept gay couples to adopt children. So the fact that they had to close was because of their own refusal to work with gay couples.

They were doing what they thought was in the best interests of the child, which I would call altruistic.


Dan

[BryanH]

They were doing what they thought was in the best interests of the child, which I would call altruistic.

Sorry Dan. All they had was prejudice. That's all. The best interests of the child would be to have a home than none at all.
I understand why they don't want to marry gay couples in a church, but what does that have to do with their ability to provide a home, education and love for a homeless child?

[Danieltwotwenty]

They were doing what they thought was in the best interests of the child, which I would call altruistic.

Sorry Dan. All they had was prejudice. That's all. The best interests of the child would be to have a home than none at all.
I understand why they don't want to marry gay couples in a church, but what does that have to do with their ability to provide a home, education and love for a homeless child?

The child did have a home, in the care of the agency.

The people who sued were not working in the best interest of the child.

The best interest of the child is to have a mother and a father and a stable home enviroment, whether you think they are right or wrong does not matter, they thought they had the best interests of the child at heart.


Dan

[BryanH]

The child did have a home, in the care of the agency.

The people who sued were not working in the best interest of the child.

The best interest of the child is to have a mother and a father and a stable home enviroment, whether you think they are right or wrong does not matter, they only had the best interests of the child at heart

We already had this discussion on this forum. Psychological studies prove that gay couples make better parents.
Being a homeless child in an agency doesn't mean you have a family.
The people who sued such agencies did the right thing. Adopting a child is not something that you decide based on religious principles.
The fact that they were an institution with certain religious beliefs doesn't mean that they can refuse adoption to people with different opinions.

Adoption is not based on RELIGION and FAITH. They made a big mistake. They mixed the wrong kind of values.

[Danieltwotwenty]

The child did have a home, in the care of the agency.

The people who sued were not working in the best interest of the child.

The best interest of the child is to have a mother and a father and a stable home enviroment, whether you think they are right or wrong does not matter, they only had the best interests of the child at heart

We already had this discussion on this forum. Psychological studies prove that gay couples make better parents.
Being a homeless child in an agency doesn't mean you have a family.
The people who sued such agencies did the right thing. Adopting a child is not something that you decide based on religious principles.
The fact that they were an institution with certain religious beliefs doesn't mean that they can refuse adoption to people with different opinions.

Adoption is not based on RELIGION and FAITH. They made a big mistake. They mixed the wrong kind of values.

In your own subjective opinion maybe.

When you have no higher standard than humanity you could say they were wrong, but this does not mean that they were not being altruistic.

Dan

[BryanH]

When you have no higher standard than humanity you could say they were wrong, but this does not mean that they were not being altruistic.

And that's how we kill in the name of God. We just invoke a higher standard.